Re: Re: RE: [Gate-users] [ no subject ]

Wed Dec 19 08:18:39 CET 2007

Dear Simon,

For clarification, we are using the following versions:

GATE 3.0.0
geant 4.8.0.p01
clhep 2.0.2.2

and

GATE 3.1.2
geant 4.9.0.p01
clhep 1.9.3.1

We look forward to hearing from you about your simulations using the different GATE versions.

Jasmine and Irene  

Original Message:

Hi Irene and Jasmine,
 
 Could you tell me please how long is your simulation 'single_layer.mac' ?
 Because if it is not too much, I will run it will all different versions of
 Gate between 3.0.0 and 3.1.2 to see what are the differences and locate
 between which ones the problem occured.
 
 I would like to know too what version of Geant4 and clhep do you use with
 these different Gate versions. Because it has been demonstrated that with a
 wrong version of Geant4 and clhep, you could get wrong results. Do you
 really use the correct ones ?
 
 Hope we fix this problem as soon as possible,
 Simon
 
 2007/12/18, Jasmine Schirmer :
 >
 > Dear Min-Jae and GATE developers,
 >
 > Thank-you for looking into this problem. We are attaching an example of a
 > simple GATE simulation (single_layer.mac and the supplementary macros:
 > no_visu.mac, physics.mac, single_layer_allmod.mac, CylFOV_Ph.mac and
 > G_CapillariesS_5m_2D.mac ). You can run this simulation by using the command
 > ./control/execute/single_layer.mac. We have run this on two versions of
 > GATE. You will see that if you run this simulation using the newest version
 > 3.1.2, you will obtain for the singles and coincidences, energy spectra
 > which do not fall to zero. The output is as follows for a 400keV low energy
 > threshold:
 >
 > There are: 868838 Singles
 > => 35514 coincidences
 > => 4395 intercrystal coincidences
 > => 9888 randoms
 > => 2264 intercrystal randoms
 >
 > where intercrystal coincidences are true coincidences detected in the same
 > rsector. On the other hand, running the SAME macro under an older version of
 > GATE (we used 3.0.0), the energy spectra falls to zero as expected with
 > the following output:
 >
 > There are: 867717 Singles
 > => 50812 coincidences
 > => 0 intercrystal coincidences
 > => 9438 randoms
 > => 2199 intercrystal randoms
 >
 > This bug in the newest version of GATE means that we cannot use the output
 > data reliably and our reconstructed images are incorrect.
 >
 > We have noticed that this problem has also been detected by Georgi
 > Gerganov. As well, we have seen the same problem using an ECAT simulation
 > (0_ScriptSystem.mac and 0_ScriptSystem.mac). The resulting plots from this
 > simulation have been posted with the November 29th email to the GATE mailing
 > list.
 >
 > Please let us know if you have any further questions.
 >
 > Thanks in advance,
 > Irene and Jasmine
 >
 > Original Message:
 >
 > Dear Irene,
 > 
 > Let me check what you are saying...
 > 
 > There is no problem with benchmarkPET...
 > [In both the old and new versions of GATE, the benchmark PET was
 > successfully completed and no difference in the energy spectra was
 > observed.]
 > 
 > In your simulation code, uphold value is 950 keV...
 > [However, the upper energy threshold of the benchmark is set to
 > 650keV while our simulations are performed at higher upper energy
 > thresholds.]
 > [/gate/digitizer/Singles/upholder/setUphold 950. keV]
 > 
 > In fact, I can't get that the benchmark is same but your code is
 > different...
 > 
 > Can I take a look on your code and simulate your code with my gate?
 > 
 > MJ
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: gate-users-bounces at lists.healthgrid.org
 > [mailto:gate-users-bounces at lists.healthgrid.org] On Behalf Of
 > Jasmine
 > Schirmer
 > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:24 PM
 > To: gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org
 > Subject: [Gate-users] [ no subject ]
 > 
 > Dear GATE users and developers,
 > 
 > A few weeks ago, we sent an email to the users list concerning a
 > problem we
 > are having with the newest version of GATE. The email was dated the
 > 29th of
 > November and is titled 'differences in energy spectra from different
 > GATE
 > releases'.
 > 
 > At the moment, we can no longer use reliably the newest version of
 > GATE
 > until this issue is resolved. To recall your attention, we showed a
 > difference in the energy spectra produced by two identical
 > simulations using
 > two versions of GATE (version 3.0.0 and the newest 3.1.2). The
 > newest
 > version gives a different and unexpected result for the energy
 > spectra as
 > you can see from the figures attached in the previous email. (The
 > energy
 > spectra does not fall to zero!)
 > 
 > We kindly ask the developers and users to address this issue. In
 > addition,
 > if anyone would like to perform a similiar test on their version of
 > GATE, we
 > would be happy to provide the macro we used.
 > 
 > Thanks in advance,
 > Irene Torres and Jasmine Schirmer
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Gate-users mailing list
 > Gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org
 > http://lists.healthgrid.org/mailman/listinfo/gate-users
 > 
 >
 > --
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Gate-users mailing list
 > Gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org
 > http://lists.healthgrid.org/mailman/listinfo/gate-users
 >
 >
 >

-- 